Network Analysis of the Shanghai Stock Exchange Based on Partial Mutual Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyzing social systems, particularly financial markets, using a complex network approach has become one of the most popular fields within econophysics. A similar trend is currently appearing within the econometrics and finance communities, as well. In this study, we present a state-of-the-artmethod for analyzing the structure and risk within stockmarkets, treating them as complex networks using model-free, nonlinear dependency measures based on information theory. This study is the first network analysis of the stockmarket in Shanghai using a nonlinear network methodology. Further, it is often assumed that markets outside the United States and Western Europe are inherently riskier. We find that the Chinese stock market is not structurally risky, contradicting this popular opinion. We use partial mutual information to create filtered networks representing the Shanghai stock exchange, comparing them to networks based on Pearson’s correlation. Consequently, we discuss the structure and characteristics of both the presented methods and the Shanghai stock exchange. This paper provides an insight into the cutting edge methodology designed for analyzing complex financial networks, as well as analyzing the structure of the market in Shanghai and, as such, is of interest to both researchers and financial analysts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".